Gospel Editing Precludes Divine Inspiration

[TheEditor]

Hi Steve,

The Scriptures mention the fact of "virgins" and their "comeliness." I certainly am not "fixated" on that in particular. God may have indeed "accommodated" this fallen nature, but why get all hot under the caller about the way they acted in defending it? But I do think it underscores the superficial nature of why the Jews took them. They were viewed as chattel and spoils of war. Why defend this?

A better question is, “Why assert this?”

There is nothing in these Deuteronomic laws that encourages chattel slavery, and, as I pointed out earlier, most of them are coming against the general ANE cultural tendency to view slaves as mere chattel. Why do you accuse the divinely-appointed law-maker of motives and beliefs that pagans exhibit, but which he never sanctions? Is this fair biblical reading?

Did I accuse the Lawgiver of such motives? Please reread my post. I said "the Jews"--the male Israelites, not God.

Again, I ask you, why do you think physical attraction in marriage is an aspect of “fallen nature” that is merely to be “accommodated”? Are you assuming that God did not build sexual attraction into the first couple, even before there was a “fallen nature” to enjoy it?

the objectors consider it a bad thing for a man to choose a wife whom he finds sexually attractive. The above response seems to be your way of answering this question. . . .You, at least, have been honest enough to weigh in on the side of the proposition that sexual attraction is a base thing in a marriage—a thing which should be condemned, or else merely tolerated with distaste. I am trying in vain to imagine anything other than this presupposition could spawn the specific objection you have raised.

Wise men, whether ancient Jewish or modern Christian, will choose wives for reasons additional to physical attraction. Even that old lecher Solomon knew that (Prov.31:10-23). But few men, however godly, initially pursue a mate without physical attraction being a serious consideration. In the man’s case (though not in the woman’s) he cannot even perform his reproductive duty without sexual attraction (I hope not to shock our female readers with this revelation, and I hardly think our male readers will find any disagreement at all on this point). As near as I can tell,

You speak as if you find this to be a disgusting phenomenon. I find no scriptural basis for your thinking so. Could this be a residual Jehovah’s Witness sensitivity that simply got baked-in from your youth? If so, I would strongly urge you to reconsider the validity of such a prejudice against God’s design. Of course, both psimmond and Paidion have also repeatedly expressed this same bizarre sentiments, without having JW backgrounds. We may never know what factors may have marred their sensitivities on this. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall for that awkward conversation when they explain to their wives that they never found them physically attractive.

I must say I find this post of yours to be bizarre in the extreme, presumptuous, or just plain sarcastic and nasty. Where pray-tell did I even so much as hint at a distaste for human sexuality in my post? Perhaps you would have been better suited for studying under Freud. You know Steve, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Having one thing and one thing only as the criteria for choosing a "wife" (ahem) is tied to a "fallen nature." I am sorry you can't see this. Where do you think "harems" came from? Because they made good cookies or cleaned-tent real well?

As for anything "baked in" from my JW upbringing; the JW view of sex is about as uptight and conservative as your average evangelical church. So, my exposure to matters of sexuality was probably similar to yours.

I understand that it is common these days for conservative men (of which I consider myself, at least socially) to drink deeply of the concept of "misandry" and get very defensive about natural male instincts and to recoil at concepts that could be remotely construed as "feminist." Perhaps this could be fueling your somewhat Israeli retaliation against my paltry Palestinian rock-throwing?

If the nation of Israel were run by women and the instruction was given that the female warriors should choose as spoils the men with the most money or largest collection of Rolex watches, I would react the same. It is part of the natural instinct of the female to find money to be an attractive thing, because money can equal security, and most women value security. I'm sure that you have met your fair share of women that would likely not have tossed their duffel bag in your VW Van and went on a missionary trip. It tends to not be in the female nature.

By the way, maybe sending male missionaries into the field to countries where women are required to convert to their husbands religion, and having them marry all the young gals would be a better way of evangelizing? I can imagine the mission fields would runneth over....

I wonder why thou protesteth so much over this? It was taught to me once that a person's reaction to something is related in some way to their emotional investment in a matter. This is why it was very hard for me to ever penetrate my fellow JW's thinking on matters related to the Organization. There was just too much emotion tied to the subject for them to respond appropriately. As I reread this interchange, and I noticed the somewhat tepid comments made by myself, and your clearly emotional response (and yes Steve, your response oozes emotion) I wonder what nerve was struck that caused such a reaction? Especially a reaction so full of presumptions and judgments about me; something you could not possibly be privy to? For someone that is as typically rational and Spock-like as you tend to be (to a fault it seems), I am quite surprised by your tone.

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

Hi Homer,

Christianity is based upon the Apostolic testimony of Jesus birth, life, death and resurrection.


I do believe a person without access to the Old testament can be a very good Christian but I do not think we can devalue the importance of the coming of the Messiah which is rooted in the OT.

I agree. I just can't quite find the passion to equate all OT verses as equally important in pointing to the Messiah. I imagine if the Book of the prophet Iddo were included in the Jewish canon, we'd be arguing over it as well....

Regards, Brenden.

[steve]

Paidion inquired:

Steve, how do you define "scripture"? Is "scripture" those writings and only those writings which happen to be in Protestant Bibles?

You once said to a Catholic that you did not accept the "canon of scripture" because early Catholics defined the canon, but rather because of internal evidence.
Please tell me what internal evidence leads you to accept the book of Esther as scripture, while rejecting the book of Judith as scripture.

Since Jesus was speaking to Jews, who had an accepted canon of Old Testament scripture, I assume He used the word in a manner readily understood by His hearers. If, as you think, Jesus did not recognize all the same books as His hearers did as scripture, then He certainly set them up to remain in their errors by never hinting at His disagreement. According to Josephus and Philo, the Pharisees of Jesus’ day accepted all the books that we call “the Old Testament” and no more. The Sadducees, it is said, accepted as scripture only the Torah.

Even if Jesus were using “scripture” in the Sadducean sense, then, it would include everything Moses wrote—thus confirming my statements relevant to this discussion.

However, since Jesus was almost certainly speaking to the Pharisees, it is plain that, by “scripture”, He would mean the entirety of our Old Testament (including Esther, but not Judith). That Jesus meant this larger canon is confirmed by the fact that His statement was made with reference to a passage in the Psalms (see John 10:34-35).

My comment to the Catholic concerning the canon, to which you allude, was made with reference to the New Testament canon. Catholics argue that it was the Roman Catholic Chursh that gave us the New testament canon (no one can claim that the Catholic Church gave the Jews their Old Testament canon). I leave it to Jesus to confirm, as He did, the Jewish canon (Luke 24:44). I have no inspired writers affirming the composition of the New Testament canon, so I make my own judgments—nonetheless coming out in favor of the traditional canon as a result.


Brenden wrote:

I wonder why thou protesteth so much over this? It was taught to me once that a person's reaction to something is related in some way to their emotional investment in a matter…As I reread this interchange, and I noticed the somewhat tepid comments made by myself, and your clearly emotional response (and yes Steve, your response oozes emotion) I wonder what nerve was struck that caused such a reaction? Especially a reaction so full of presumptions and judgments about me; something you could not possibly be privy to? For someone that is as typically rational and Spock-like as you tend to be (to a fault it seems), I am quite surprised by your tone.

I am glad that someone acknowledges that I have emotions. I freely (and frequently) admit to this myself, but sometimes people doubt me on this.

I am unashamed to own my emotional commitment to the infallibility of Christ’s teaching, and to become noticeably irritated when people within the Christian camp argue that He is not trustworthy—or when, in seeking to support their own agenda, refuse to acknowledge the clear teaching in the most unambiguous statements of Christ.

I do not get emotional when such disingenuousness comes from non-Christians. I expect foolishness to pour out from the mouths of the ignorant. However, I do not expect what appears to be blasphemy to be found from those who otherwise profess loyalty to Jesus. When Christians present a Jesus opposite to the real one, my reaction may sometimes resemble that which I find in Paul’s reactions, in 2 Corinthians and Galatians, when confronting the same kind of offense.

Those who find themselves on the ropes in this discussion, and who wish to resort to ad hominem reactions to my arguments, will probably react to this last comment by saying, “So now you equate yourself with the Apostle Paul, do you?”

I do not, but the closer our attitudes can approximate his, the better for us all. He tells us to imitate him, as he imitated Christ. If my reaction to “another Jesus” being presented in this forum resembles Paul’s reactions to the same types of misrepresentations, it actually is not, in this case, by deliberate imitation of him, but by sharing the same passion for the same core concerns.

I honestly couldn’t give a rip about the reasons why any given Israelite might choose a wife, but it is apparently a matter of great importance—almost an obsession—to those to whom I am responding. It was not I, but they, who brought up this matter in Deuteronomy, with the express interest of proving that the law, in this case, could never have been approved by Christ. That is the issue that I am debating. To find something in this law for Christ to object to, they have to read into it base motivations that are neither stated nor hinted at in the law itself. They also have to pretend that Jesus did not express His unqualified approval for Moses and his writings. Neither of these represents honest handling—either of holy Scripture or of the holy Christ.

In the course of debating my main concern here, I have endeavored to show that there is nothing in that law, except what may be read into it by jaded minds, that presents any moral issues that can be shown to be below Christ’s standards. That particular law deals with marriage, rather than mere slavery, for prisoners of war, and gives them the privileges of free women if they should later find themselves freed from their marriages.

Since even the best of men tend to choose their wives from the pool of available females whom they find attractive, I have argued, there is nothing lecherous or below the dignity of God that can be discovered in any action recommended in the passage. Though the law acknowledges that men marry women who are attractive to them, there is no suggestion (other than that imported by the cynical reader) that any given man’s attraction to his choice ends at the physical level.

Why should this discussion arouse my emotions? Partly due to the refusal of my correspondents to acknowledge the obvious truth and to repeatedly return to deny the incontrovertible. You would find the exact same passion on my part in vindicating any other law in the Torah which was being misused as an argument by those seeking to fabricate a Jesus more like themselves than like the real one.

My temperament is not more ruthless or misogynistic than is anyone else’s here. I am more pleased to suffer harm than to inflict it on any person, and I look up to a great many women as superior to myself. Partly due to my temperament, and partly due to my cultural conditioning, I would find it very difficult to carry out some of the commands of God in the Old Testament—just as I have some difficulty carrying out some of the commands in the New Testament. But one thing I am unwilling to do is to pretend that the historical Jesus is a product of modern attitudes as much as I am—and then, in defense of my position, to contort His own statements (repeatedly, even after I have been shown to be wrong), so that I can maintain my new, improved Jesus, made in my own image.

If this is not what you do, Brenden, then there is nothing in my emotional remarks that should offend you. This shoe must be worn by those with the proper size of foot. Disinterested readers of this thread will have no difficulty recognizing who it is that ought to be repenting.

[TheEditor]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your passion for defending the scriptures as you understand them. However, if you would re-read my previous post, your reaction to it, and my subsequent response, you will see that I was not surprised at your defense of the Bible, but rather your somewhat snarky and personal jibes at me and my apparent (?) Victorian attitudes on human sexuality. The fact that you chose to respond to my objections to that point with a defense of your passion for Jesus (something I never raised as an objection) tells me you either don't see it or can't. I'll let the same audience you appeal to make up their own minds.

Regards, Brenden.

Edit: One thing I did forget to add to this conversation, is my distaste for ascribing all reluctance to embrace every part of the OT as the product of "20th century sympathies." These objections have been around for nearly 2,000 years, unless one supposes that somehow those folks were tainted by our sympathies? I would suggest that the more logical conclusion is that we in this day and age are finally emerging from a very Stoic, Dutch-Reformed mindset that tells us to "man-up" and ignore our empathies. One can't have it both ways. You can't have these objections be the product of modern times, and still have the same objections held for centuries.

[steve]

Hi Brenden,

I apologize for the snarkiness. I am at a loss to understand what, other than discomfort with sexual attraction, could lead an otherwise rational person to fault the Bible for its giving permission to men to marry women whom they find attractive. The assumption that this bespeaks a shallowness in terms of inter-gender relationships (which at least three of you have expressed) implies that 1) the law implies that a man can or will have no reasons other than sexual for his choice of mates (not a word of scripture warrants this assumption), and 2) that it would be immoral if a man were to marry a woman for very little reason other than physical attraction.

While doing the latter could rightly be regarded as very foolish, it is hard to see how this constitutes a moral evil, unless sexual attraction is regarded as a tainted motivation. If it is, then I would be willing to bet that more than half of marriages from the beginning of time to the present fall into that evil category—including many of them that have lasted a lifetime and have produced great children.

To object to this on pseudo-moral grounds seems to suggest a very culturally, modern and provincial basis for our judgment. I would think it a very ill-advised thing, especially in our day of easy divorce, for any man to marry a woman who shared no areas of compatibility with him, other than mutual attraction. I would, generally, not predict great success or happiness for such a marriage. However, I would be unable to find the moral evil in it. My former parents in law, who were both visually stunning in their youth, married each other after an acquaintance of only three days. I hardly thing very many factors other than sexual attraction could have played a major role in their decision. They remained married for over fifty years, until his death. Two of their three children are serving the Lord today. Did they do something immoral?

You, and two others here, have strongly suggested that there is negative moral taint to a law which you have mistaken to encourage marriage among people who are incompatible other than by physical attraction. I am eager to hear a possible reason, other than the one I suggested, that could explain this objection. Consider the following reasoning:

Premise A. Visual attraction is a base and probably immoral reason for a man to pursue a wife (notwithstanding 1 Cor.7:8-9).

Premise B. Deuteronomy allows men to marry women whom they find visually attractive;

Conclusion: Thus, Deuteronomy embodies an evil law, unworthy to be regarded as the mind of God, and of which neither Christ nor any Christians should approve.

If the three of you did not accept this conclusion, then the discussion concerning Deuteronomy 21 would not have occurred in this thread. Yet, I cannot see any basis for the conclusion without affirming both Premises A & B..

Now, "Premise B" is incontrovertible.

However, I do not accept "Premise A," so I also reject the Conclusion.

You accept "Premise B" (which is not controversial) and you also seem to accept the "Conclusion," but you say you do not accept "Premise A" (or at least you object to my saying you accept it).

Please provide an alternative to "premise A" that does not turn the whole syllogism into nonsense. In other words, how can a rational person arrive at the "Conclusion" without "Premise A" as stated?

-------------

On your last paragraph:

There have always been people, like myself, who recoil emotionally from some of the permitted practices of the Old and New Testaments, but this is neither surprising, nor relevant. Among Christians (apart from Marcionites) these emotional objections were historically not permitted to shape doctrine. It is the church of the modern era in which human sentiments have been allowed to do so. My guess is that you might respond something like, "Finally! We can rejoice that the church has finally found its heart!" This would make my point. It would show that my correspondent assumes the modern sentiments to be the best of all, because they are modern and they are ours. I would wish to point out that the modern times, in which we might say the church has "found its heart," happens to be the same tame in which many of us believe on biblical grounds that the church has "lost its way."

[Homer]

This thread took a turn into the present logomachy on page two, June 5, with Paidion's post and my response followed by Steve's. It seems to me that to get to the heart of the matter we need to ask whether God has caused the death of (many) innocent people, in order to carry out His purposes. For the moment, forget whether God instructed, through His prophets, the destruction of various people, for if He Himself was directly responsible for the death of many, and innocent ones at that, it is of little importance if He was indirectly responsible for many deaths through human agents.

So I would ask those who are critical of the Old testament accounts and disbelieve the accuracy of many things recorded there, what is your position on the truthfulness of the accounts of the events surrounding the Exodus? And getting right to the heart of the matter, did God directly cause the deaths of all the first-born in the land of Egypt, save those of the Israelites who placed the lamb's blood on their door posts? Surely there were at least thousands of small children among those who the scriptures say were slain. And if this story of the first Passover is false, how are we to believe in a second Passover Lamb, that is, the Christ?

What say ye?

[Paidion]

Imagine how much worse the censure would have been had Moses been falsely prophesying and totally convoluted the picture of God's nature by writing evil laws in the name of Yahweh—as some of our participants here believe he did! Why didn't God bring any of these things up when explaining why Moses would not be allowed to enter the land? Had Moses successfully concealed these forgeries from the eye of the Almighty?

This strikes me as an irrefutable argument. I would like to see an answer from any who disagree with Steve's position (which is mine also).

Irrefutable? It's irrefutable only if you already believe that Moses always explained God's doings correctly. Moses' own record states that after striking the rock instead of speaking to it,he said to the Israelites, "Hear now, you rebels! Must we bring water for you out of this rock?" What if Moses began to feel guilty for taking honour to himself instead of giving it to God? What if he THOUGHT that God didn't allow him into the land for this reason? Because he believed that God had given him all the laws concerning stoning to death adulterers, homosexuals, and rebellions children, and cutting off women's hands if they defended their husband by grabbing the aggressors genitals, etc., etc. etc., then even if God HAD objected to these laws, Moses may not have been aware of it.

[Paidion]

So I would ask those who are critical of the Old testament accounts and disbelieve the accuracy of many things recorded there, what is your position on the truthfulness of the accounts of the events surrounding the Exodus? And getting right to the heart of the matter, did God directly cause the deaths of all the first-born in the land of Egypt, save those of the Israelites who placed the lamb's blood on their door posts? Surely there were at least thousands of small children among those who the scriptures say were slain. And if this story of the first Passover is false, how are we to believe in a second Passover Lamb, that is, the Christ?

My present position is that Exodus is generally true history concerning events that occurred. However, I am not sure that all the events which were ascribed to God were actually His doing. I have no idea how natural events could cause the firstborn of every family to die, and even the firstborn of the livestock. If that is what happened, then it seems unlikely that it could happen naturally.

As for the Messiah being "the second passover lamb," that seems to be of a different order from the first passover. Messiah Jesus is "the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." Everyone needs to be saved. In the first passover, Moses records that the blood on the door posts saved only the firstborn. The others didn't need to be saved; they were in no danger.

[TheEditor]

Hi Steve,

You are setting up a false dichotomy here. I did not suggest using physical attraction as a basis for marriage to be an evil. Nor did I say that using it as the only basis (though likely unwise) to be an evil. You are arguing a point that at least I have not made. Plus, I am not sure that your "A" plus "B" equals "C" logic is the only algebra that works. But algebra was never my strong point.

My position on the Law in question is that I see it as a concession to what was the normal practice of that day, namely, that victorious warriors once having won the battle, would take spoils, and those spoils included the rape of women, particularly young virgins. This battlefield mentality has persisted until the 20th Century, though it was particularly common practice in ancient times. This appears to be such a concession. If they found no favor in the eyes of the warrior once he had her sexually, he could discharge her. I suppose then he was free to return to the battlefield on the next occasion and find another, should he survive.

Jesus said that divorce was done as a concession because of the Jews hard-heartedness. Without going into the details here about the different schools of thought (Shammai versus Hillel) Hillel prevailed and the Jews put women out for all manner of infraction, including spoiling dinner or seeing another woman that he thought was more attractive.

I see the Deuteronomical allowance for taking virgins as spoils of war to be just such a concession. I have no reason to believe these battlefield marriages were anymore honorable than the typical Jewish marriage, and I am sure, human nature being what it is, even less so. This is my "Conclusion C."

A better question might be why the need to defend this provision anymore than Jesus defended the provision for divorce? You went so far as to throw out the word "Marcionism." Really? I know that you know what Marcion taught. He dismissed any connection between the OT and the NT entirely, as well as whatever Epistles he thought supported it. On what basis do you make such an inaccurate and hence irrational charge? Is it the "camel's nose under the tent" reasoning? It's the whole tone of the response; Marcionite; Victorian prude, and etc. that provoked me to question what emotions are at play here to cause such a response, to what I believe (certainly in my case) is at best a thoughtful position and at worst, tepid criticism of the record.

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

TheEditor I think you're kind of assuming the soldiers would be lascivious about it and not treat the girls with any respect, but that assumption for me isn't really in the text. And again, it's obvious that we can speculate a world where the Israelites, instead of fighting, all fast and pray for the conversion of the Canaanites and go out and turn the other cheek. That would be a spiritual war instead of a physical one. Why God ordained their slavery, exodus and conquest to become a light to the world is a mystery since we assume God could avoid the consequences of sin altogether if he wished. He chose to illustrate the severity of sin by the severity of his own personal sacrifice but not to the exclusion of the consequences of the sin, or of rejecting the substitutionary death none of us deserve. But Yahweh is a man of war, and this world is a world of sin. There's a billion "other ways" God could have done it, and that's why I think it's a mistake to sit in judgment over the holy text of Scripture.

bless!